Players talk smack when they feel they are performing well in PvP.
I've seen this many times from feds and klinks. Its not a factional thing nor does it point to those players not wishing for balanced gameplay.

How would a ranking system rank the players? by number of matches player? won? lost?
Hours played in PvP?
What about those players whom have skill but do not play often?
What about those whom have little skill but play alot of PvP?
Are we too rank each other then?

I'm all for a fun PvP experience and I have nothing against a ranking system, I just do not think its so easy to implement.

We begged for cariers?

Total # of wins or win/loss ratio would be a decent way to get some match-making. Ratio may be "fairest" once you have a certain amount of total matches accrued, but even total wins can do okay, I think. The really good players will inevitably reach very high numbers here, so that the typical casual PvPer will not be close. And if you somehow manage to have 1000 wins and 10,000 losses and are fighting TSI with 1000 wins and 500 losses, well, that just sounds unlikely.

Total # of wins or win/loss ratio would be a decent way to get some match-making. Ratio may be "fairest" once you have a certain amount of total matches accrued, but even total wins can do okay, I think. The really good players will inevitably reach very high numbers here, so that the typical casual PvPer will not be close. And if you somehow manage to have 1000 wins and 10,000 losses and are fighting TSI with 1000 wins and 500 losses, well, that just sounds unlikely.

Match wins? Hmmn, this may be the rare event when you didn't think one through MustrumRidcully. If you go by match wins, then pug players will all suck and premade players will all be great. While there may be some correlation between how good you are and how likely you are to play in premades, any player looking to advance on the leader board for matches will have to avoid all pugs, just so he doesn't get paired with newbies.

I think Roach has it right. The only way to do a decent leaderboard for STO would be to include all sorts of combinations for comparison. Tracking the kind of data necessary may be more of a technical hurdle than we think.

Match wins? Hmmn, this may be the rare event when you didn't think one through MustrumRidcully. If you go by match wins, then pug players will all suck and premade players will all be great. While there may be some correlation between how good you are and how likely you are to play in premades, any player looking to advance on the leader board for matches will have to avoid all pugs, just so he doesn't get paired with newbies.

I think Roach has it right. The only way to do a decent leaderboard for STO would be to include all sorts of combinations for comparison. Tracking the kind of data necessary may be more of a technical hurdle than we think.

The match-making thing is not just there so you feel good about yourself. It's also to be there to ensure that matches are reasonably "fair". So yes, you absolutely have to measure wins or the win/loss ratio, and yes, it means if you want to be on the top of the ladder, you have to join a premade.

I am all for having additional statistics per player and character that measure, say average DPS per match, DPS over time, healing per match and what not. But these metrics do not help with a match-making system.

Total # of wins or win/loss ratio would be a decent way to get some match-making. Ratio may be "fairest" once you have a certain amount of total matches accrued, but even total wins can do okay, I think. The really good players will inevitably reach very high numbers here, so that the typical casual PvPer will not be close. And if you somehow manage to have 1000 wins and 10,000 losses and are fighting TSI with 1000 wins and 500 losses, well, that just sounds unlikely.

The point of my post was to put forth the question, " what do we measure to determine player skill and placement in a ranking system?"

In the end if it is just wins that determine a players rank and by defualt analysis those whom run premade teams will rise to the top and the casual player will not even come close to the same rank due to PuG inconsistancies, it may be better to just submit the names of those players whom are known to be at or near the top for thier own Ques as the number of mid level and lower level PvP'ers I think is greater in number.

What will happen is that those whom have shown themselves superior will play as often as their group allows while the PuG'ers will still be repleate with cries of "unfun" and "no fair" as those mid level not-quite-so-profficient PvP'ers will rise to the top in PuG and the cries of "seperate PuG and Premade" will continue.

At the same time you will haev those whom flub thier own records so they can remain the Big fish in the small pond, so to speak.

I think the system may need to be more than just who wins, number of won matches, etc, otherwise we may end up with the elite PvP'ers in a bracket all their own and the same level of angst, infighting and complaining in the ques below that we have now.

The point of my post was to put forth the question, " what do we measure to determine player skill and placement in a ranking system?"

In the end if it is just wins that determine a players rank and by defualt analysis those whom run premade teams will rise to the top and the casual player will not even come close to the same rank due to PuG inconsistancies, it may be better to just submit the names of those players whom are known to be at or near the top for thier own Ques as the number of mid level and lower level PvP'ers I think is greater in number.

I think there are many premades out there, but they are not all equally good. A match-making system can help identify PuGs that have enough potential to beat one of the weaker (or even one of the stronger) premades.

Of course, every players wish may be to have a top rating, but not being in a Premade is a good sign you never can, and I don't really see a way to change this.

Quote:

What will happen is that those whom have shown themselves superior will play as often as their group allows while the PuG'ers will still be repleate with cries of "unfun" and "no fair" as those mid level not-quite-so-profficient PvP'ers will rise to the top in PuG and the cries of "seperate PuG and Premade" will continue.

I am not sure I can follow you here. I think the main issue people have is that they fight the same Premade again and again and don't see a way to win. That's why they want the Premades gone. If they don't keep fighting a Premade because the premade is just rated so much higher, their concern is addressed. If they keep fighting it, they are either better than they think (and remember, every time you lose, your opponents rating rises and your own does not or get worse, so if it is requally an unequal match, you should stop seeing them.), or there are just you and the Premade in the queues and seperating the queues would lead to neither of you playing.

Quote:

At the same time you will haev those whom flub thier own records so they can remain the Big fish in the small pond, so to speak.

But can he? How can you be a "Big Fish in the small pond" if you have to intentionally lose matches? I don't think this is really something people can pull off well.

Quote:

I think the system may need to be more than just who wins, number of won matches, etc.

A good system may be more complex than just a single number. But if it's just one single number with no mathematical tricks, it has to be match wins. No other single value is more representative.

A better system with more numbers taking into account should probably consider #matches and the ratio of win/losses.
Say, people that have played 100 matches or less are in their own "league" compared to people that played 1000 matches. It may also require to cut off after a certain amount of time. It makes sense to me to track win/losses for your entire career, but actually accounting for match-making should probably be limited to something like the last 100 matches or the last 30 days.

Relevant Matches for Win/Loss Ratio: Last 100 matches or all matches in the last 30 days, whichever number is higher.
RATIO Rating: 10 Wins to 0 Losses = 10; 9 to 1 = 9; [...] 0 to 10 = 0;

Rating Adjustment based on experience: +1 per 100 matches played.
Team Rating is: Sum of all Adjusted RATIOs across all team members.

Now we need a match-making algorith that actually creates sensible matches without locking people out of play forever because no match can be found, or ignoring ratings because it only looks for wait time. Maybe it's best to classify players into categories based on how long they are queued when considering teams.

If we go by wins and losses I'm going to get a huge ego boost while I play in the kiddy pool. Yesterday I demonstrated my incredible PvP prowess by completing several Capture and Holds with more deaths than kills!

I
I am not sure I can follow you here. I think the main issue people have is that they fight the same Premade again and again and don't see a way to win. That's why they want the Premades gone. If they don't keep fighting a Premade because the premade is just rated so much higher, their concern is addressed. If they keep fighting it, they are either better than they think (and remember, every time you lose, your opponents rating rises and your own does not or get worse, so if it is requally an unequal match, you should stop seeing them.), or there are just you and the Premade in the queues and seperating the queues would lead to neither of you playing.

In a perfect world, maybe. I thinkt he reality will be the same we have now as those Premades not good enough to be in the upper eschalon will be the new target of angst in the pugs and the cries for the ability to not play premades while PuGing will continue.

Quote:

But can he? How can you be a "Big Fish in the small pond" if you have to intentionally lose matches? I don't think this is really something people can pull off well.

You scores say you suck while in reality you have the skills to be in a higher PvP bracket?
It doesn't take much to lose a match and do so enough to keep oneself in the range of PuGing. Players will do this to massage thier own egoes or just for kicks.

Quote:

A good system may be more complex than just a single number. But if it's just one single number with no mathematical tricks, it has to be match wins. No other single value is more representative.

A better system with more numbers taking into account should probably consider #matches and the ratio of win/losses.
Say, people that have played 100 matches or less are in their own "league" compared to people that played 1000 matches. It may also require to cut off after a certain amount of time. It makes sense to me to track win/losses for your entire career, but actually accounting for match-making should probably be limited to something like the last 100 matches or the last 30 days.

Relevant Matches for Win/Loss Ratio: Last 100 matches or all matches in the last 30 days, whichever number is higher.
RATIO Rating: 10 Wins to 0 Losses = 10; 9 to 1 = 9; [...] 0 to 10 = 0;

Rating Adjustment based on experience: +1 per 100 matches played.
Team Rating is: Sum of all Adjusted RATIOs across all team members.

Now we need a match-making algorith that actually creates sensible matches without locking people out of play forever because no match can be found, or ignoring ratings because it only looks for wait time. Maybe it's best to classify players into categories based on how long they are queued when considering teams.

*ponder*

The point is the system had best be set to work well or the cries of seperation will not go away, players will continue to complain, OPness will still be a cry we hear and the status quo will be unchanged.